as a result of the Peoples’ Petitions for Redress
of injuries due to the Government’s
adoption of the Iraq Resolution
in violation of the war powers
clause of the Constitution, the
Government’s adoption of the
Federal Reserve Act in violation
of the money clauses,
the Government’s
adoption of the
USA Patriot Act in
violation of the
privacy clauses, and
the Government’s
operation and enforcement
of a direct, un-apportioned tax on the
People’s labor in violation of the tax clauses.
say the Government has to listen or respond. NOTE: The twentysixth Amendment guarantees everyone over the age of 18 the
right to vote, but it does not say the Government has to count the
votes. As Chief Justice Marshall wrote in 1813, there is no provision
in the Constitution that was intended to be without effect.
The People’s noxious injuries multiplied. Without
responding at all to the People’s ‘Framers’ Intent argument,
and without offering its interpretation of the meaning of the
Accountability clause, the federal courts dismissed We The People
v. United States, saying that the Supreme Court of the United
States has ruled in two earlier cases that the Government does
not have to listen or respond to Petitions for Redress. The two
cases cited by the courts were Smith v. Arkansas and Minnesota
v. Knight. Both cases involved on-the-job, employment-related
grievances from public employees who felt they did not have to
comply with laws passed by their State legislatures dealing with
grievance procedures for public employees. In Arkansas state
The People repeatedly Petitioned for Redress of these injuries highway workers wanted to submit their grievances to their state
in the most humble terms. The only remedy the People sought employer through a union, even though the state law prohibited
was for official, specific answers to the questions included in the unions. In Minnesota, state college professors wanted to submit
Petitions, questions that challenged the constitutionality of the their grievances directly to their employers, even though the
acts of the Government.
state law required them to submit their grievances through their
union. In those two cases, the Supreme Court
The People’s injuries increased; the
ruled the public employees had to comply with
During the entire history
Government refused to respond, ignoring the
their State laws.
of the United States of
People’s Right of Redress.
America, no court had
Both the Smith and Knight cases were not
The People decided to claim and exercise their
interpreted the meaning
on point. The facts and the legal arguments in
Right to retain their money until their Grievances
of the Accountability
those cases had nothing to do with the facts and
were Redressed, a Right guaranteed by the
Clause that is, no court
the law in We The People v United States, where
Accountability Clause of the First Amendment.
had ever declared the
the Plaintiffs are citizens who, in their private
Rights of the People and
capacities, are challenging the Government’s
The People’s insulting injuries multiplied.
the obligations of the
violations of the Constitution of the United States
The United States answered by retaliating against
Government under the
of America.
the People with liens, levies and seizures of
last ten words of the First
property.
The People Petitioned the Supreme Court of the
Amendment
United States to hear the case.
The People took the United States to court,
claiming the retention of their money under the
The People’s injuries intensified dramatically. Without
circumstances was protected by the Accountability Clause of the
further comment, the Supreme Court simply declared it did not
First Amendment.
want to hear the case (notwithstanding the fact that its primary
During the entire history of the United States of America, no job is to interpret the meaning of the Constitution and to hold
court had interpreted the meaning of the Accountability Clause the other two branches in their constitutional places). NOTE:
- that is, no court had ever declared the Rights of the People and SCOTUS did not refuse to hear the case because it believes the
the obligations of the Government under the last ten words of case is frivolous or without merit. Rather, it is safe to assume
the First Amendment, words that guarantee the fifth of the five SCOTUS is highly politicized, and decided not to hear the case
Freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. The People’s case because the Court knew that if it was put into the position of
rested on a thoroughly researched review of the historical context having to interpret the Accountability Clause the ultimate power
and purpose of the Accountability Clause - i.e., the original in our society would come to rest with the People (where the
intent of the Founding Fathers. Critically, there was nothing in Founding Fathers intended it to be).
American history or jurisprudence that contradicted the People’s
It gets much worse.
interpretation of the meaning of the Accountability Clause.
United States v. We The People
The People’s unjust injuries grew. The Attorney General’s
defensive argument was, The Constitution says the People have The second case, United States v. We The People arose from the
the Right to Petition for Redress, but the Constitution does not Accountability Clause as a result of a Petition to the Government
2 To access the linked files mentioned, go to: www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2008-04-12.htm
for Redress of injuries relating to the Government’s practice of
forcing companies to withhold pay from the paychecks of its
employees and to turn that money over to the IRS.
from the Government attend the meeting and to advise WTP if
anything it was doing or saying was false or misleading. At no time
did the Government ever respond to any of the 37 NOTICES.
On March 15, 2003, in order to reconcile significant, well
documented discrepancies between the statutory requirements of
Internal Revenue Code and the Government’s institutionalized
practice of forced withholding, WTP Petitioned the federal
Executive and Legislative branches for Redress of alleged
Grievances. This Petition relied on and directly quoted relevant
statutes, regulations and court decisions. The objective of the
Petition was to secure a legal review of the material by the
Government, or (if Government chose not to respond to the
Petition) by corporate attorneys and accountants that might
receive the Petition materials and then, if possible, to effect a legal
termination of withholding if expressly provided by law.
On March 31, 2007, complete with WTP’s 45’ x 25’ banner
that reads “No Answers, NO Taxes,” one hundred and thirty
People dressed in “V” for Vendetta masks and costumes stood
in formation during a one hour silent vigil on Pennsylvania
Avenue at an entrance to the front of the White House. This was
the third in a series of “V” events by WTP. On November 5, 2006,
a single “V” appeared at the security check points at the White
House, the Attorney General’s office, and the Capitol to serve
another copy of the outstanding Petitions for Redress. The entire
episode was videotaped and appeared on YouTube and Google.
See web address at bottom of this page.
The Petition included forms for workers to submit
to their company officials with instructions that
the materials be submitted to a “rigorous review”
by the company and its “tax professionals.”
To repeat, the Petitions were earmarked for review
by tax professionals, with the stated goal being
the voluntary termination of wage withholding
for ordinary workers as and if provided for under
U.S. tax law.
In addition, the Petition included a NOTICE
to the Government requesting to be notified if
there was anything in the Petition that was false
or misleading, and informing the Government
of the WTP’s intention to distribute the contents
of the Petition to workers across the country,
free of charge. All the material was contained in
a blue folder, labeled “Legal Termination of Tax
Withholding”.
The People’s constitutional injuries were compounded.
The Government ignored the
People and their Petition for
Redress.
Receiving no response from the
Government, WTP posted the
entire contents of the blue folder
on the Internet -- the entire Petition
for Redress regarding withholding,
allowing anyone to download
and print the material for free. In
addition, during April and May
of 2003, WTP distributed, free of
charge, 3,500 copies of the Petition
at 37 public meetings around the
country. In advance, WTP formally NOTICED the appropriate
local federal DOJ and IRS officials of the date, time and location
of each of the 37 meetings, requesting each time that someone
On November 14, 2006, sixty “V”s stood in formation in a silent
vigil at the White House with the “No
Answers, NO Taxes” banner.
WTP sponsored the three “V” events
to protest the Government’s refusal to
respond to the withholding Petition for
Redress and the other seven outstanding
Petitions for Redress: 1) Iraq Resolution;
2) Federal Reserve; 3) USA Patriot Act;
4) Direct, Un-apportioned Tax on Labor;
5) Immigration; 6) North American
Union; and 7) Gun Control.
On March 31, 2007, under the
heading, “AGITATING FOR THE FIRST
AMENDMENT,”
the
Washington
Post published a photo of the “V” for
Vendetta vigil and a short article about
the constitutional issue involved.
The People’s constitutionally noxious and deleterious
injuries mounted. Several days after the Washington Post
article appeared, the United States sued WTP in a civil action.
The suit charged that by distributing the Petition for Redress
on withholding WTP was “promoting an abusive tax shelter”.
The Government asked the Court for an order permanently
enjoining WTP from distributing copies of the Petition, requiring
WTP to turn over to the Government the identities and contact
information of all People who received a copy of the Blue Folder
and requiring WTP to post a copy of the Court’s order on the
front page of WTP’s website.
Arguing the distribution of copies of the Petition for Redress
was protected by the First Amendment’s accountability clause
as well as the free speech clause, WTP filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint. The Government responded with a motion for
a Summary Judgment. WTP opposed summary judgment on
the ground that the Court would be in violation of due process
interests if it were to grant summary judgment due to the large
number of facts material to the case that were in genuine dispute,
requiring an evidentiary hearing.
To watch a video of “V”s visit to DC, go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1k95If_lGkM&feature=user
3
The
People’s
baneful
injuries at the hand of the
courts multiplies further.
The District Court awarded
the Government a summary
judgment -- i.e., it passed
judgment without any public
hearing or a trial, and without
considering the evidence in
the light most favorable to the
People, as required by Due
Process of law.
WTP
appealed
to
the
Second Circuit, honing its
constitutional argument and
requesting a reversal. WTP’s appellate brief, the Government’s
response and WTP’s reply are posted on the front page of our
websites.
However, the People’s unjust injuries at the hands of
the courts increased in the extreme. On February 4, 2008,
WTP appeared before a panel of three Appellate judges for “oral
argument”. On February 22, 2008, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its terse decision, affirming
the District Court’s decision “for substantially the same reasons”.
On April 7, 2008, WTP filed a Petition for an En Banc Rehearing.
This is a must read (short) legal document, for it demonstrates
just how far the courts are willing to go to shield the Government
from the accountability clause of the First Amendment.
Among the charges leveled against the Court of Appeals in the
Rehearing petition is that the initial judicial Panel violated several
judicial canons of conduct when it orally berated appellant Schulz
in public by subjecting him to a lengthy personal inquisition,
demonstrating deep bias and
prejudice against him. The Panel
also sought (and succeeded) in
publicly goading the largely
unprepared U.S. Attorney into
a commitment to have DOJ/IRS
pursue criminal charges against
Schulz. Beyond even this
outrage, the WTP Defendants
were denied Due Process on
several other grounds by the
Panel, not the least of which was
the Court’s refusal to allow any
discussion of any of the potent
Constitutional questions raised
by WTP on appeal.
To those who may have had any remaining doubt, it is
now clear: The courts have evolved into the political weapon
of choice for quashing the dissident voices of those fighting the
Government’s growing attacks upon the Constitution.
In the words of one reviewer, WTP’s Petition for an En Banc
hearing, “is temperate yet forceful and thoroughly argued”. If you read
it you will have a clear understanding of the problem with the
courts.
Endemic Constitutional abuse has left our Republic in
a fragile state. Deprived of Justice, deprived of Redress and
deprived of any established political instrument to secure such,
the People are being slowly forced to seek out alternative means
of resistance.
This Foundation believes the People possess the means to secure
Constitutional Order by employing peaceful methods of protest
to awaken a sleeping nation.
www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2008-04-12.htm
Within this link you can access the following documents;
Petition for En Banc Rehearing (.pdf)
Transcript of the Feb. 2008 oral arguments before the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. (.pdf)
We The People Foundation for
Constitutional Education
WTP Foundation
2458 Ridge Road
Queensbury, NY 12804
We The People will soon release additional details of
its vision and plan to restore the Republic and secure
Liberty. We pray you will join our cause for we know
that while we must remain pro-active and non-violent,
we can only achieve the reform we are entitled to if we,
the People, achieve a mass-movement going forward.
The Constitutional Conspiracy:
Courts Colluding With
White House
to Avoid Accountability
April 12, 2008
The proof is in. The federal courts have been found to
be co-conspirators with the Executive Branch in a
collusive scheme to avoid being held accountable to the
Constitution by the People.
There can be no doubt. The federal judiciary is now being
utilized as a weapon of oppression rather than for the ends of
Justice for which it was designed.
Not only has the Judiciary abandoned its role as an independent
arbiter of legal controversies involving injured citizens seeking
remediation for Government wrongs, the Judiciary now refuses
to even discuss the most basic, underlying Founding Principles
upon which our Republic rests, i.e., the Rights of the People to
Sovereignty and to hold Government accountable -- particularly
its obligation to respond to Petitions for Redress of constitutional
torts as provided by the First Amendment.
The Congress has failed. The Executive has failed. And
now, the Judiciary joined her sister branches in a conspiracy to
prop up a cancerous and dangerous government.
The proof of the constitutional conspiracy can be found in
two lawsuits that arose out of the Accountability Clause of the
Constitution: 1) The landmark Right-to-Petition lawsuit, We
The People v. United States; and 2) the current “6700” civil
lawsuit, United States v. We The People.
At the heart of the constitutional question is the long-forgotten
unalienable Right of the People, as articulated by the last ten
words of the First Amendment, to hold their servant government
directly accountable. According to the clear, and (still) unrefuted historical evidence, this important Right also embodies
the Right of the People to peacefully secure Accountability by
withholding their financial support should the Government
fails to provide Redress.
The most egregious result of these developments is that not only
The behavior of the courts as evidenced by the
are the People effectively unable to secure Redress
record can leave but one interpretation: The
against Government entities that have harmed
The behavior of the
three branches of Government have colluded
them, but the Judiciary has now abdicated its
courts as evidenced by the
in a constitutional conspiracy to impede the
fundamental function under the Constitution
record can leave but one
exercise of the Right of the People to secure
by refusing to interpret the Constitution where
interpretation: The three
Constitutional Order.
questions of the Sovereignty of the People are
branches of Government
implicated.
have colluded in a
This conspiracy against the Constitution
constitutional
conspiracy
cannot be tolerated any longer.
This is no small matter for the People.
to impede the exercise of
Without substantive recourse through the courts
Admittedly, this article is longer than we
the Right of the People
and no means by which to secure a declaration of
prefer to post. There have been a number of
to secure Constitutional
these fundamental Principles from the Judiciary,
significant recent developments as these cases
Order.
the People are, indeed, left with very few means
have moved through the courts that we have
by which to peacefully secure their Rights against
not reported about until now. Some of these
the majority or the tyrants.
shocking developments are provided within context below
Of course, the Government would much prefer that we quietly along with the potent legal pleadings we have responded to
tolerate such despotic behavior, but it is now very clear that the them with. We trust you will find the escalating conspiracy
People must begin to seriously assess their remaining options to against the Constitution to be most troubling and worthy of
your investigation. Thank you for your continuing interest and
restore Constitutional Order.
support of our noble cause.
With the illusion of Justice now stripped away by the
Judiciary herself, our nation rapidly approaches a crossroad: We
We The People v. United States
will tolerate the continuing insolence of our servant government
and quietly lose our remaining Freedoms, or we organize and do The first case, the landmark Right-to-Petition lawsuit, We The
something to stop it.
People v. United States, arose from the Accountability Clause
www.givemeliberty.org 1